Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients with underlying malignancies and prior transplants. FDA approved Isavuconazole as a primary therapy for Invasive Aspergillosis (IA) and Mucormycosis. This study aims to compare the real-world clinical outcomes and safety of isavuconazole to voriconazole and an amphotericin B-based regimen in patients with underlying malignancies and a transplant. In addition, the response to anti-fungal therapy and the outcome were compared among patients with a disparity (elderly, obese patients, patients with renal insufficiency and diabetes mellitus) versus those with no disparity. We performed a multicenter retrospective study, including patients with cancer diagnosed with an invasive fungal infection, and treated primarily with isavuconazole, voriconazole or amphotericin B. Clinical, radiologic findings, response to therapy and therapy related adverse events were evaluated during 12 weeks of follow-up. We included 112 patients aged 14 to 77 years, and most of the IFIs were classified into definite (29) or probable (51). Most cases were invasive aspergillosis (79%), followed by fusariosis (8%). Amphotericin B were used more frequently as primary therapy (38%) than isavuconazole (30%) or voriconazole (31%). Twenty one percent of the patients presented adverse events related to primary therapy, with patients receiving isavuconazole presenting less adverse events when compared to voriconazole and amphotericin (p < 0.001; p = 0.019). Favorable response to primary therapy during 12 weeks of follow-up were similar when comparing amphotericin B, isavuconazole or voriconazole use. By univariate analysis, the overall cause of mortality at 12 weeks was higher in patients receiving amphotericin B as primary therapy. However, by multivariate analysis, Fusarium infection, invasive pulmonary infection or sinus infection were the only independent risk factors associated with mortality. In the treatment of IFI for patients with underlying malignancy or a transplant, Isavuconazole was associated with the best safety profile compared to voriconazole or amphotericin B-based regimen. Regardless of the type of anti-fungal therapy used, invasive Fusarium infections and invasive pulmonary or sinus infections were the only risk factors associated with poor outcomes. Disparity criteria did not affect the response to anti-fungal therapy and overall outcome, including mortality.

(1) Background: Invasive aspergillosis is a life-threatening fungal infection, particularly in patients with hematologic malignancies. Isavuconazole, a broad-spectrum triazole, has emerged as a key treatment option, but real-world data in high-risk populations from middle-income countries remain limited. (2) Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the clinical response rate and tolerability of isavuconazole in patients with hematologic malignancies and probable or proven invasive aspergillosis across four medical centers in Brazil. (3) Results: We enrolled 50 patients aged 18 to 82 years (64% male) with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis, diagnosed in the context of complex hematologic conditions. Among them, 60% had active or refractory malignancies, and 22% had a prior COVID-19 infection. Isavuconazole was used as a first-line therapy in 64% of cases. No patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The 6-week overall survival was 60%. Prior COVID-19 infection was associated with a lower survival rate (44% vs. 69% in patients without COVID-19, p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: This study provides real-world evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of isavuconazole in a high-risk population. The findings reinforce its role as a key antifungal therapy, particularly in patients with complex underlying conditions.

Background/Objectives: Guidelines recommend adjusting amikacin dosing based on patients’ renal function. Nevertheless, for critically ill cancer patients, the renal function equations based on serum creatinine levels have low or no correlation with amikacin clearance. Considering this, using real-world data, we built an amikacin PBPK model to predict amikacin plasma concentrations in critically ill oncologic patients stratified by renal impairment levels. Further, the model was applied for dose stratification and individualization (digital twin strategy) in this population. Methods: In the Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) study, 368 amikacin pharmacokinetic analyses from 184 critically ill cancer patients were enrolled in three cohorts. A full-body PBPK model was developed using PK-Sim v. 11.3. Results: The final PBPK model accounted for two groups of critically ill cancer patients with mild (creatinine clearance; CLcr ≥ 60 mL/min) or severe (CLcr < 60 mL/min) renal dysfunction. In the dose stratification strategy, at the 7th dose, cancer patients with CLcr ≥ 60 mL/min under regimens 20 mg/kg (q24h); 25 mg/kg (q24h); 25 mg/kg (q48h); and 30 mg/kg (q72h) have probability of ≥69% of the patients achieving the efficacy target (AUC/MIC > 80, MIC of 4 mg/L), while cancer patients with CLcr < 60 mL/min under regimens 7.5 mg/kg (q24h); 15 mg/kg (q24h); 15 mg/kg (q48h); and 20 mg/kg (q36h) have ≥90% probability of achieving the same efficacy target. Conclusions: Our MIPD approach demonstrates potential in optimizing amikacin dosing for critically ill cancer patients. However, it does not eliminate the need for TDM due to unexplained variability still not accounted for by the PBPK model.